ProZ.com has now opened Wikiwords for general use. It’s based on translation suggestions collected at ProZ (KudoZ).
bq. One warning: our focus now is on the mechanisms, and we are not concerning ourselves with content–or quality–yet. So contributions you make now are likely to get wiped at the end of the beta period.
It sounds as if they’re just trying out the mechanics first. When Kudoz entries help me, it’s often in the original context, with all the answers and discussions. I wonder if that will enter the dictionary?
You can register and enter terms, which may remain marked as your collection. Some of this material will presumably be plagiarized – a specific collection of terms used in an online dictionary making money for someone
I find these collections great, with many of the very terms I happen to need. The suggestions may be excellent or lousy, but I can decide that for myself: after all, the user has to be informed enough to separate the wheat from the chaff, whatever the reference consulted.
Here’s a quote from the ProZ newsletter, just received:
bq. Yesterday, ProZ.com announced Wikiwords, a project to create a comprehensive and open dictionary of all terms in all languages. The initial response has been dramatic.
At this point, comments on the approach, suggestions on licensing terms, and any other feedback (however harsh) will be appreciated. All those interested in playing a part (terminologists, project managers, developers, designers), are invited to express interest via the website.
A warning: our immediate focus is on the mechanisms, and we are not concerning ourselves with content–or quality–just yet. Terms and translations contributed now are likely to get wiped out at the end of the beta testing period.
Wikiwords – all terms, all languages, built by you. Let’s get started!
(via the enigmatic Maria Eugênia Farré, the founder and moderator of Glosspost, the glossary list at Yahoo)
Can’t say I’m overjoyed at the prospect of yet another uncontrolled terminology source appearing online. It’s bad enough as it is, with customers trying to reject our translations by arguing that “LEO says…”. And if the quality mirrors the quality of the “Kudoz open glossary”, we’re in for a really rough ride.
Yes, it doesn’t look good, although they do invite any and every criticism of the present procedure. I find Wikipedia works quite well, but language seems more of a problem. Still, I often find Kudoz and Leo helpful, but mainly because of the links and examples given. I suppose people on Proz feel obliged to give examples in order to win their points, and if they are given some kind of points on Wikiwords, that might encourage them too.
There is also a Wiktionary, and I bet that’s not all.
I find the Websters online dictionary to be sometimes a better source than Leo…
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/German-english/index45.html
Paul
I have reported on that dictionary before, more than once, but I haven’t looked at it recently. I will have to try it out when I’m next looking at Leo et al.
The Websters just seems and is (obviously) more rigorously and academically well-researched. Leo does however have the comments and these do sometimes come up with gems. I share your and Robin’s doubts about the usefulness of yet another terminology free-for-all. Most certainly to be taken with a bucket of salt. Am also waiting for the day when a client claims I am wrong as “Wikiwords lists this”…
Paul
Paul
I see there is an awful lot in the Webster’s now, although I found Galenik /galenics and Endpunkt / endpoint too literal. But what I like to see is the exchange of opinions attached to Leo and ProZ, and I suppose those are the bits that are not likely to go into the dictionaries. Well, at least one can then do a bit of Googling and find out if the solutions are any good, and then it gets a bit time-consuming.